The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance

Jimmy Carter Is Wrong -- It ' s Just Not About Race

The widespread anger and doubt about Obama's vision is over genuine ideological differences between the president and his opposition. His vision and the opposition to it  is color blind. It's time for our president made this fact unmistakably clear.

Folks, as a marketer and an American I've got to say: I’m fed up.

It's just not about race.

And it is high time that President Obama, who marketed himself as a post-racial candidate, take the lead and move the current flap of Joe Wilson’s outburst last week far beyond racism.

From a marketing perspective this is critical for two reasons: 1) Obama was elected by a majority white nation -- this in itself is a statement that racism isn't a definitive factor in our nation anymore, if it was, he'd never be president -- end of story; and 2) he was elected because he promised to move the nation beyond the old ways of doing things. Well, making claims of racism is one of the old ways of doing things that he needs to decisively move us forward.

The electorate and Barack Obama's Target Market are waiting for a strong response and President Obama is the only one who can deliver it -- but will he?

Unfortunately, others seem to be speaking for him at this point and what they’re saying is only moving everything backward.

Then in an interview with NBC's Brian Williams, Jimmy Carter said this:

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man."

That was the last straw. Fuggedaboutit.

I am not saying that racism doesn't exist or that it didn’t figure at all in Joe Wilson's words, but marketing (like true political leadership) is about what should be emphasized and what should be de-emphasized. And President Obama has consistently marketed his presidency as an issues driven one. Whenever faced with ambiguity or bad feeling that comes from who-knows-where, he has wisely chosen to either ignore it or treat it directly in a way that made it much less toxic.

There's an old song that Bing Crosby made famous. It goes something like this: You’ve got to accentuate the positive, Eliminate the negative, Latch onto the affirmative, Don’t mess with Mister-in-Between...

This isn't a Pollyanna sentiment; this is about making a positive choice to keep your eye on the issues that matter and making the ideal –in this case, a post-racial society -- a reality.

Bottom line, at crucial moments in our nation’s history, we have always been about accentuating the positive and ignoring the ambiguity that would wreck us.

To become a nation in which we had a president and not a king, we had to make affirmative choices. We had to emphasize our belief in one ideal over another old way of thinking. The attraction of monarchy remained (heck, we still talk about an imperial presidency) but it was gradually lessened first by George Washington's affirmative choice to be a president, not a king, and then by election and after election and presidency after presidency until the presidency was rock solid in our land.

Just as he made a famous speech to explain Reverend Wright, President Obama must now make a statement that accentuates the positive and doesn't mess with Mister-in-Between.

His is the post-racial brand and like any brand he must promote those post-racial characteristics like there's no tomorrow.

First, he needs to say that he believes that Joe Wilson's outburst and much of the animosity toward him from tea partiers and others is not about race. But then he needs to finally and firmly acknowledge what most of us already know:

The widespread anger and doubt (the hundreds of thousands marching on Washington) is about genuine ideological differences between the president and his opposition. It's about belief. It's about palpable fear that the Obama brand believes in a radically different vision of America than many Americans: a creeping nanny state, a place of big government and too little opportunity for re-invention and prosperity for the little guy.

Simply put, this vision and the opposition to this vision is color blind –and it's about time that our president made this fact unmistakably clear.

And remember, the business of politics is always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

JOHN LOTT: Thugs In the

JOHN LOTT: Thugs In the White House By John R. Lott, Jr. Senior Research Scientist, University of Maryland/Author, Freedomnomics. So much for any hope that the government would uphold rules and abiding by contracts. Instead, we keep getting examples of something else – that when President Obama fails to persuade firms to follow his wishes, he does not hesitate to use threats of financial destruction. Cliff Asness, the co-founder of the $20 billion hedge fund AQR Capital Management, laid bare the latest attacks with an open letter on Wednesday: “The President screaming that the hedge funds are looking for an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout is the big lie writ large. Find me a hedge fund that has been bailed out. Find me a hedge fund, even a failed one, that has asked for one. In fact, it was only because hedge funds have not taken government funds that they could stand up to this bullying. The TARP recipients had no choice but to go along.” This is just the latest in a string of intimidating tactics starting with threatening costly public audits to get compliance. Then there were the threats of firing CEOs who had the audacity to oppose government plans. The very latest is threats to use “ the full force of the White House press corps [to] destroy [the firm Perella Weinberg's] reputation” if it resisted the government stealing their money, according to Thomas Lauria who represented the firm up until last week. ABC News’s Jake Tapper reports that Mr. Steven Rattner, the head of the auto task force, made the threat. The White House has been pushing hard to nationalize the automobile companies. While bondholders and the government have loaned similar amounts each to GM and Chrysler, the White House feels that the government should get 50 percent ownership of GM and the creditors about 10 percent. The Wall Street Journal reports that unions are also being given stock that should be going to the creditors – 39 percent of GM and 55 percent of Chrysler. Most of the financial institutions holding these bonds have gone along with Obama’s nationalization of the car companies for a simple reason -– the government has already nationalized them and they do the government’s bidding. As ABC News and the Wall Street Journal note: JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs have been given up to $100 billion by the government. The irony is that the Feds gave these financial institutions money because they were hemorrhaging financially and now the government orders these same institutions to throw away money and take loses that no private company would voluntarily do. Not surprisingly, with this waste, there is talk that Citigroup may need another $10 billion from the government. As we have pointed out previously here, the government only obtained ownership of many financial institutions through threats of imposing unnecessary costly public audits and replacing disobedient CEOs with political cronies willing do Obama’s bidding. Yet, there are financial institutions that the government still has not gotten control over, and they are fighting this wave of nationalization. So how does the Obama administration control these financial institutions that have avoided being forced to take government bailouts? Why, of course, their standard method: threats. According to lawyer Thomas Lauria in an interview with Frank Beckman on WJR radio, one of his former clients “was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That’s how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence.” Not surprisingly, as the financial institutions did not cave in, President Obama then followed through his promise and attacked these creditors. During his announcement of Chrysler filing for bankruptcy, he warned, “While many stakeholders made sacrifices and worked constructively, I have to tell you some did not.” Despite the financial institutions offering to give up 50 percent of their bonds value, Obama claimed: “They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices, and they would have to make none.” The New York Times and other media have joined in on this attack. One consequence of the president singling out these creditors is that The Detroit News reported on Monday that some have received death threats and that the threats has been turned over to the FBI. Finally, we can’t help note that Rattner seems the perfect person to play the enforcer role. In April, The Wall Street Journal reported that Mr. Rattner’s former private-equity firm, Quadrangle Group, is the target of a long-running pay-to-play investigation. Mr. Rattner wasn’t named in the SEC complaint, but The Journal reported that Rattner was “the senior Quadrangle executive the complaint identifies as meeting with a politically connected consultant about a finder’s fee, which Quadrangle later paid after receiving an investment from the New York fund.” Of course, the administration denies that it has threatened Chrysler’s creditor. This from an administration that denies Obama bowed to the Saudi King despite it being on video tape. Some creditors, such as Perella Weinberg Partners, have already given in to the president’s threats over Chrysler. But breaking contracts through thuggish threats makes investment riskier and increase the costs as much as any big tax increase. Driving investment overseas is not the way to make America wealthier. John Lott is a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland and the author of Freedomnomics. John Lott’s past pieces for FOX News can be found here and here.

DAN GAINOR: The Left ’s Daily Hate-a-Thon

By Dan Gainor Media Research Center’s Vice President for Business and Culture

You’re a hater.

Face it. You wouldn’t even be reading this right-wing, reactionary claptrap if you weren’t. After all, I’m a hater as well. So are countless conservatives from Sean Hannity to Rush Limbaugh. Ann Coulter? Was that a question? Michelle Malkin. Of course, she’s a conservative star! Bill O’Reilly? The left has secured a special place in secular hell for him because he dared to criticize the practices of partial-birth abortion doctor George Tiller.

———-

The media label conservatives as haters and ignore how hate-filled the left is. It’s a ridiculous double-standard.

———-

In fact, all conservatives are considered haters unless they agree with President Obama –- on everything. Scary, dangerous haters who “cling to guns or religion,” as the president once put it. Especially guns because we are having an epidemic of political killings in America.  — Or so we are told.

It’s not true. The fact that lefties are desperately trying to link Holocaust Museum murder suspect neo-Nazi James von Brunn to the right shows how desperate they are for examples – any examples.

Remember, the GOP didn’t love everything Reagan did, but a loyal conservative taking up arms against the U.S. and the Gipper? Are they nuts?

Don’t answer that.

Yes, partial-birth abortion doctor George Tiller was killed. Conservatives didn’t support that or any murder. So far it appears it was one lone gunman. Just like the one lone gunman who shot President Reagan. Or the two separate left-wing gun-women who tried to assassinate President Gerald Ford.

In a nation of 300 million people, you need more than one or two examples to prove a trend. That’s my cue to show there are better responses. I’m a hater, so this is part of my soon-to-be government-mandated re-education.

Look at the travesties the right is inflicting on decent, God-unfearing liberals:

•    First, we have the CIA director attacking a former vice president saying, “he’s wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point.” Poor Mr. Gore. It’s horrible that Republicans treat him in such a hateful manner. •    Then there’s beautifully bigoted actress Megan Fox who is set to fight the equally evil Megatron in her new “Transformers” movie. She was asked how to stop Megatron and said she would urge him to take the “Independence Day” approach and wipe out urban areas – “instead of the entire planet, can you just take out all of the minorities, the urban poor, the gays, and those crazy Bible-hating atheists in America?” •    Finally, there’s the disrespect accorded Hillary Clinton. One vile, rightwing comedian said she had purchased new makeup to update her “‘slutty flight attendant’ look.” That same moron joked about getting her 14-year-old “knocked-up.” Or maybe it was her 18-year-old.

I’m not a hater, but I’m a liar. Not one of those quotes was targeted at liberals. In the first case, CIA Director Leon Panetta told The New Yorker magazine that Dick Cheney was using “dangerous politics.” But Panetta wasn’t being hateful. Liberals are never hateful.

Or take Megan Fox, please. The mega-beauty showed her mega-ugly side when interviewed about her upcoming film. She went after conservatives, urging Megatron to spare the Earth “and instead of the entire planet, can you just take out all of the white trash, hillbilly, anti-gay, super Bible-beating people in middle America?” Hateful? Her?

Lastly, we have David Letterman. First Letterman mocked Sarah Palin’s attempts to upgrade her “‘slutty flight attendant’ look.” Next he bashed her 14-year-old daughter, then amended his attempt at humor to say he was trying to bash a helpless 18-year-old instead.

Even the National Organization for Women sided with Palin and inducted Letterman into its Hall of Shame. In the testosterone-less world of “The View,” most of “the ladies” agreed Letterman was wrong. Barbara Walters summed it up by declaring critics can say whatever they want about a person but “don’t talk about my child.”

In every case, it was lefties holding their everyday hate-a-thon. Of course, it’s not real hate. Real hate happens in countries where hundreds of thousands die because someone wants to wipe them out.

Most American hate pales by comparison –- thank God.  While other nations get lost in civil war, pogrom or genocide, American hate ends up a twisted update of the Barney song: “I hate you, you hate me.” Americans misuse the word. We don’t hate broccoli, we just dislike it. And most sports fans don’t hate their opponents – except for the New York Yankees.

Hate in America is a marketing tool and the left is milking it for all it’s worth – to push a liberal agenda. The New York Times’ Paul Krugman and others are laying the groundwork to go after conservative speech –- on talk radio, on TV and maybe even in print. Other liberals, like the supposedly neutral journalist Bill Moyers want Obama to target guns, too. “Enough’s enough,” summed up Moyers.

In each case, the media are blaming conservatives as haters and ignoring how filled with hate the left is. It’s a ridiculous double-standard.

Don’t you hate that?

Dan Gainor is The Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center’s Vice President for Businessand Culture. His column appears each week on The Fox Forum and he can be seen each Thursday on Foxnews.com’s “Strategy Room.”

The expression "doth protest too much, methinks." applies. I have contended for awhile, that liberalism is used as a mask to cover  deep seated hatred. They project it on to others and, in this case, that means Conservatives.

Obama ’s Wimp Factor

By Liz Peek Financial Columnist

President Obama is like the starving cheapskate at a smorgasbord; he wants it all, but refuses to pay for it. Health care reform, climate control, smarter schools, “fairer” taxes, greener vegetables and fat-free ice cream for everybody –- they’re all on the agenda. (Okay, so I snuck in the last two, but no one’s really counting.) Our ambitious young leader isn’t drawing tight the purse strings; he’s refusing to spend the real coin of the political realm – his personal popularity.

———-

Obama continues to refuse to dip into his treasure chest of popularity but he needs to be prepared to lose some of the “love” in the love fest that surrounds him.

———-

Obama knows, as has every president before him, that he has a window of opportunity. When first elected, each new commander-in-chief has a store of goodwill at his disposal. Some presidents have more, some have less. There’s no question that Mr. Obama has a veritable warehouse of public enthusiasm available, but astonishingly, he’s as tight as a tick about spending it.

Soon, Obama’s window will begin to close, and he knows it. His panicky call to supporters about health care reform from Air Force One the other day said it all. “If we don’t get it done this year, we won’t get it done,” he said. He’s right.

Yet, Obama refuses to dip into his treasure chest of popularity. Every time he has to offend some constituency, he shies away. Take the recent, much-ballyhooed tobacco legislation. One of the facets of the bill was that it banned flavors which supposedly make smoking more appealing. The only flavor of any importance – menthol – was, however, left off the list. Why? Because the Congressional Black Caucus lobbied for the omission, knowing that three-quarters of black voters prefer mentholated cigarettes.

This was simple (and unhealthy) pandering to a group that is unlikely to snub President Obama come Election Day. But, Obama couldn’t bring himself to spend even a nickel of his popularity passing legislation that might actually reduce smoking.

This thriftiness is even more visible in Obama’s plans to overhaul financial regulation. There has been building sentiment that the cut-and-paste approach to financial regulation in this country is disastrously confusing and inefficient. Some attribute the subprime mortgage catastrophe and subsequent recession in part to the ability of financial institutions to shop for the friendliest regulator, and the inability of overseers to see from a top-down perch the excesses building in the system. There has been universal agreement that we need to simplify and streamline the dozens of regulatory authorities that have sprung up as the financial services industry has evolved.

The Obama plan, to be rolled out this week, incredibly adds a layer of regulation by proposing two new structures – a “council of regulators” which will apparently be made up of those in charge of the existing agencies – and a new body to oversee consumer products like mortgages and credit cards.

I doubt that anyone in the Obama administration could possibly imagine that this is an improvement over the existing messy status quo. But – surprise! It turns out that the Congressional committees that are charged with regulating the regulators enjoy those powerful positions, and refuse to give them up. Who would Barney Frank be if he couldn’t excoriate the titans of Wall Street in his Financial Services Committee? Who would have ever heard of Collin Peterson, except for his oversight of the House Agricultural Committee, which just happens to manage the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission?

Instead of pressing his allies in Congress to accept some diminishment of their responsibilities, Obama caved, perpetuating a dysfunctional regulatory system. Some might welcome this tendency of the president, since it reduces many initiatives to mere gestures. However, the concern for taxpayers is that this proclivity is bound to generate bad legislation. Among Obama’s strongest supporters are union members who have already been favored on a number of important fronts. The worrisome disregard for established bankruptcy proceedings in the treatment of Chrysler and GM bondholders, the inclusion of a “buy America” provision in the stimulus bill, the threat to cut off aid to California if the state lopped off some union employees, the elimination of a pilot program allowing Mexican trucks to operate in the U.S., the idiotic “cash for clunkers” program that will give buyers the opportunity to trade up to a distinctly un-green Hummer – these are just a few examples of union-friendly moves that raise costs and guarantee votes.

Among our greatest challenges is improving the public education system in the U.S. Most would agree that any significant gains will threaten the powerful National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers whose nearly 5 million members ponied up generously for Obama’s campaign and worked hard to get out the vote. Arne Duncan, Obama’s Education czar, comes with an excellent reputation, and a notable history of championing charter schools that can often skirt union rules. To be successful, Mr. Duncan will have to roll back the insane practice of guaranteeing automatic life-long tenure and extinguish other measures which embrace mediocrity. Unfortunately, one of his first moves was to derail a prized voucher program in Washington, D.C. – not an auspicious start.

I wish Mr. Duncan good luck. To make any real progress, he will have to persuade President Obama to unlock his treasure chest of popularity, and to lose the love-fest. That may be his biggest challenge of all.

Obama whimpy? Obama all talk? Hmmmm, where have I read that before?